Why didn't Ron Paul's "Opt Out" proposal ever gain steam in the liberty movement?

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

It's something I've wondered for a while. During the campaign, Paul floated the idea of proposing where individuals could "opt out" of the system. Basically saying you opt out of the nanny government programs, welfare, SS, obamacare, unemployement, etc and agree to pay a 10% income tax (obviously for federally controlled stuff like defense, roads, courts, etc). I thought it was a great idea and wouldnt require a politician to repeal anything. There really is no basis for an argument against it. If politicians say it would hurt the system because they wouldnt be able to raise enough funds, then that flies in the face of their assersions that "the people" want all these programs and taxes. Of course they would argue that the rich would take advantage of it since they dont need all those social welfare benefits, but the impact would be minimal IMO. It would also empower Americans to pay for the government they want. And self serving politicans would be off the hook because they wouldnt have to stick their neck out by repealing certain programs or agencies.

I thought this was a good idea and a nice short term way for us to get a nice chunk of our liberty back, but it seemed to not gain much traction. Ron Paul mentioned it few times, but he never really put forth a detailed proposal on how it would work. And liberty folks never really championed the idea.

What was your view on the whole opt out thing?

 

[jdcole]

I thought it was a great idea. Allow people to pick and choose which services (beyond courts/defense/et al) people get from the government. Over time, as more people rely on the government less and less, people will start questioning if we really ever needed government at all.

 

[TheGrinch]

Well, nullification has begun in some places, and is probably our best shot to collectively say "NO".

However, Ron is smart enough to know that TPTB won't simply allow us to opt out individually without consequences.

So while he's in favor of this, he also realizes that in the current environment "opting out" will come with the consequences of civil disobedience... And while we're all in favor of civil disobedience, people still have to weigh if the consequences are worth the message it sends. Individually, I'm not sure you'd really see it have much effect versus the risks, so it's not surprising most of us aren't doing it. However, we the people have much more power collectively, and so we do need more collective stances to say that enough is enough, that this is our country, our states, our communities. Easier said than done though...

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

Too Much Freedom for the mundanes is bad for the state.

Government programs are theft and all of them are PONZI/PYRAMID schemes... they required more & more payers in, if not, then it crashes or the benefits and services have to be cut. That pisses recipients off and always reveals the scams of government thievery.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Because it was a compromise idea, intended to get support from non-libertarians. Had the idea been 'opt in,' I think it would have gained more traction.

 

[Grubb556]

On a principle level, people by default should have been "opted out" (so to speak). They can then decide to opt-in.

 

[eduardo89]

Because it's a silly and unrealistic idea?

 

[fisharmor]

Because it's a stupid idea.

That 10% is federal only. State and local still gouges you.
Then there's the matter that most of us aren't giving up a whole lot more than 10% in taxes. In a one-income household, with kids, and a mortgage, and education expenses, and medical deductions, I'd be surprised if many of us get over 20%.

So what I hear is, I could

a) Spend half as much on FEDERAL taxes as I currently do, and not get anything out of it, and if I lose my job then I'm extra-super fucked, especially since I don't have any of the money I already paid into that system, or

b) Stay the course, and if I lose my job I get the safety net I ALREADY got robbed to support against my will, and if things explode during my lifetime then I still have the chance that it'll happen irrespective of my current non-safety-net-using resources, i.e. I'll still be working and saving for retirement so I won't care what happens when the system collapses.


In my opinion it's the second dumbest thing RP ever advocated (right after closed borders).

 

[ClydeCoulter]

@fish, I remember Ron arguing against closed borders. He warned that they could keep you in as well as keep them out. He did say that IF we are to continue with giving welfare to illegal immigrants, then closed borders would be the only way to decrease spending on future illegal immigrants.

 

[fisharmor]

@fish, I remember Ron arguing against closed borders. He warned that they could keep you in as well as keep them out. He did say that IF we are to continue with giving welfare to illegal immigrants, then closed borders would be the only way to decrease spending on future illegal immigrants.

He said that in relation to building a physical fence.
He's consistently called for increased control over who comes in. Presumably to be effected without a physical fence.
During the campaigns it seemed like he said ad nauseum that soldiers should be brought home to do just that.